Theoretical Position. Standards for Evaluating Theories - Essay Example

? Theoretical Position Paper Theoretical Position Introduction Theories have been used widely in different fields of study. They have been used as evaluative told for the understanding, describing, and giving predictions about a particular subject matter. For a theory to be considered ideal, it has to meet the five evaluation standards. However, there are some standards that are important than the others. Two theories (ontology and epistemology) will be used in this context. In simple terms, ontology is the explanation of the characteristic and organization of the being. On the other hand, epistemology deals with the scope and nature of knowledge. Standards for Evaluating Theories There are five standards for evaluating theories and they include scope, testability, parsimony, utility and heurism. In the assessment of the scope of a theory, one has to determine how much and how good a theory defines and explains. Testability is the second standard for evaluating theories; in this aspect the theory is investigated to know whether it is correct or not, or [if it is incredible such that it does not require to be tested] (Can this be reworded without the word "incredible" and "does not require" to be tested? Our text does not cover the concept of a theory being so incredible it doesn't require testing). A third standard for evaluating theories is parsimony; parsimony can be referred to as simplicity. In this context, the theory does not have to be complex. The fourth standard is utility; many people tend to think that theory as being academic and esoteric (when it can have a functional use). The last standard in evaluating theories is heurism. What is the heuristic value of the theory? In this context, one asks himself if the theory leads to new thinking or its contribution to the knowledge of something and if it offers us with the possibility of further investigation (Wood, 2004). Some of the standards or criteria are more important than others; this is because I think they are more subjective than the others. I believe scope, parsimony, and utility to be more important than the others. In the context of scope, some of the theories claim to define and offer an explanation to almost all features of mass communication (including the medium, the recipient of the media messages, the content and the communicator). There are theories that provide an explanation and a description of only one feature of mass communication. For instance, “feminist theories which although can cover the whole domain of mass communication, often only focus on media content and the portrayal of women in media content” (Fourie, 2001, p. 46). When considering how well a theory defines something, one has to distinguish whether the theory offers a full or partial description of all the important aspects of the phenomenon. For instance, a theory can focus on all or partial aspects of mass communications process (medium, messages, communicator and recipient) (Fourie, 2001, p. 43). In regard to parsimony, it is thought that majority of the best theories are simple and they permit sound description and explanation. For example, the Roman Jakobson’s theory of communication functions has been used in many ways by a number of researchers to investigate the components of mass communication (Jakobson, Pomorska & Rudy, 1985, p170). In the context of utility, theories are supposed to possess practical importance in terms of the individual understanding of the phenomenon with the aim of managing the phenomenon and enhancing the phenomenon. A theory assisting us in understanding how mass communication operates “can lead to our control of this phenomenon to the benefit of people and society” (Fourie, 2001, p57). Ontology Ontology can be defined as the division of philosophy that deals with the organization and the nature of being (Maedche, 2002, p56). In other words, it is a branch of philosophy that explains the characteristic and organization of the being. My ontological position is that the characteristics and organization of beings can be affected by their interaction with their environment. In the context of ontology, I am of the persuasion that humans have free will and they are affected by their throwness. Wood defines throwness as “the fact that we are thrown into a multitude of arbitrary conditions that influence our lives and opportunities" (Wood, 2004 p. 53). Simply defined, throwness is how subjects interact with their environments daily and how it impacts on their instincts, reactions and immediate interpretations. Throwness affects the nature of the being (that is, ontology). Humans have the free will to do what they want and their interactions with others are can be dependent on their throwness. For instance, in the field of mass communication, freedom of speech and expression is given the highest priority in our western culture. It is considered that the people in the media should have the freedom to express themselves and have no restrictions from the government or other external forces. Given the free will to express their matters, the media people are affected by the things and people they interact with. The immediate interpretation of the media people on war against terrorism is war against humanity. From the interaction with the terrorists, it comes out clearly that many people suffer innocently in the name of fighting against terrorism. Thus, according to terrorists, the war against terrorism is war against humanity. Epistemology Epistemology is a division of philosophy that deals with the scope and nature of knowledge. It is the theory of how an object’s knowledge can be attained and how accurate knowledge can be gained. The goal of epistemology is to offer some light to the source, development, and method of cognition. Epistemology is related to the basic issue of ontology, that is, the conflict between materialism and idealism (Unification Thought Institute, 1992, p.12). My epistemological position is based on the idea of subjectivity or the differences among individuals. Subjectivity is a dimension of the human personhood that goes deep into the heart of what is to be a human agent who is responsible. Subjectivity brings out the truth, that is, how we interact with the truth and including first hand decisions, commitment, and struggle that brings us close to the truth (Thiselton, 2005, p102). For instance, a parent’s perception of his children is that they are great performers in school, that is, they are all round students who excel in almost everything (such as sports, academics and student leadership). This may not be the true situation of the mentioned children. Their performance in school may be below average and their involvement in the mentioned activities is non-existent. None of the children are involved in sports, their discipline is wanting and they may have dropped out of school. This is an example of how the thoughts of an individual can be differing in the context of epistemological subjectivity. The parent’s knowledge of the children is based on the perception that they are great achievers in the learning institution. Conclusion Among the five standards for evaluating theories scope, parsimony, and utility seem to be more important than the others; this is because of their subjective nature. Humans have the free will and they are affected by their throwness. In other words, their daily interaction with the environment affects their free will. The main aim of epistemology is to shed light on the source, development, and method of cognition. Subjectivity or the differences among individuals brings out the truth about a particular perception or ideology. References Fourie, P. J. (2001). Media studies: Institutions, theories, and issues. Lansdowne, SA: Juta and Company Ltd. Jakobson R., Pomorska, K. & Rudy S. (1985). Verbal art, verbal sign, verbal time. University of Minnesota Press, Maedche, A. (2002). Ontology learning for the semantic web. Norwell, MA: Springer. Thiselton, A. C. (2005). A concise encyclopedia of the philosophy of religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Unification Thought Institute. (1992). Essentials of unification thought: The head-wing thought. Unification Thought Institute. Wood, J. (2004). Communication theories in action: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Read More